User talk:Jackbox1971

Re: Page Merger

Hello there.

You stated on my talk page that "The motivation for merging these four singles is unclear to me and seems to be based mostly on desire for singles with similar titles to be culled in one place." You're exactly right, that is the motivation.

The thing about the situation regarding "Everything Counts" and "Enjoy the Silence" is that the articles are supposed to be about the songs and not the singles. For that reason, throughout Wikipedia, remixes, covers, alternate releases, and the like are always covered within the same article as the original release. Think of it as a "one composition, one page" type thing (I've always thought that was a Wikipedia rule regarding songs, but haven't been able to find the specific documentation, I'll keep searching). Extending the comparison past Depeche Mode, take "Blue Monday" for instance, where the article covers all three versions of the release ('83, '88, and '95). Of course discography sites like depmod.com and the official site are going to separate the singles, because the point of their inclusion on those sites is to discuss the singles as an entity, while here, in my opinion, the point is to discuss the song as a whole.

I understand your point in thinking that the mergers are reductionistic, but it is perfectly valid, and encouraged as a general rule to keep all information regarding one particular song on one page, regardless of how many different times it has been released as a single. This allows one to fully discuss all of the implications of the work in one location.

You're right that all four releases are historically notable, but this can be covered in two articles, and does not warrant four. I disagree that an individual catalog number should automatically be reason to separate the article. It's best to discuss everything about the song on one, easy to find page, rather than spread the information out across two.

John5008 | talk to me 01:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply (I got it by e-mail last night, but have been a bit too busy to respond).

First things first, "John the Revelator" isn't exactly a cover, it's just based on a different song with the same title. In addition, the original song does not appear to have a page on Wikipedia, so the page's current position is not technically a "separate" article.

Back to your original point, however, I do understand where you're coming from, especially as a researcher. If you're trying to go through the band's catalog chronologically, the two pages create instances where you'd have to backtrack to a previously viewed page and sort out the information. I just personally don't think that discussing two releases on the same page "fails to recognize the decision, made by the band and record company, to promote what are historically distinct songs." It seems to me that there should be no problem with discussing the historical relevance of both the original and live versions of "Everything Counts" or the original and reinterpreted versions of "Enjoy the Silence" on the same page. Perhaps, as the articles are written now, they focus more on the original versions, and do not fully address the importance of either re-release, but that can be easily fixed without a page separation.

What this all appears to boil down to is whether or not one believes that each page should be about a distinct song or about a distinct single. To me, it seems that the two of us have polar opposite opinions on the subject, and because of that, the issue probably won't be decided with a discussion between the two of us. I suggest that we take up the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs and see what a larger number of people who deal with articles about songs and singles think about the subject.

As a bit of an aside, I really appreciate the positive comments you left me on the content of my work :) . Personally, I've been thankful for the helfpul fact checking you've provided for the articles.

Take care. John5008 | talk to me 04:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If I am logged in, why should I have to sign? Jackbox1971 (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)